JUDGMENT Four accused persons, Raghubir Singh alias Bhira s/o Chanan Singh, Sukhdav Singh alias Billa s/o Chanan Singh, Sukhdev Singh s/o Chanan Singh, Kulwant Singh s/o Chanad Singh originally accused Nos. 1 to 4 respectively were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial Court found them guilty and sentenced them accordingly. The appeal filed by them has been dismissed by the High Court. A-2 and A-4 filed Criminal Appeals Nos. 551/83 and A-1 and A-3 filed Criminal Appeal No. 447/84 in this Court. The prosecution case is as follows: The accused as well as the deceased. Joginder Singh and the injured persons Harbhajan Singh (P.W.I), his wife Narinder Kaur (P.W.2), and Bachan Singh (P.W.4) belong to the village Bundala. On 24-9-81, Surinder Pal a Line Superintendent of Punjab State Electricity Board detected accused Raghubir Singh stealing electricity power from the main line for working his tubewell. He made a report. Raghubir Singh suspected that Harbhajan Singh (P.W. 1) and his brother Joginder Singh, the deceased were informants against him. On 26-9-1981 at about 2.30 p.m., Harbhajan Singh (P.W.1) along with his wife Narinder Kaur (P.W.2), and the deceased and their relation Bachan Singh were proceeding from the house of Joginder Singh to the house of their brother Gurbux Singh to discuss the date for marriage of Amarjit Singh. Bachan Singh (P.W.3) was the mediator. When all of them reached the mango tree, Raghubir Singh A-1, and his brother, Sukhdev Singh, A-3 and their family friends, namely, Sukhdev Singh alias Billa, A-2 and Kulwant Singh, A-4 emerged from Haveli. Raghubir Singh was armed with a .12 bore single barrel gun, his brother, Sukhdev Singh. A-3 was armed with a kirpan, Sukhdev Singh alias Billa, A-2 and Kulwant Singh, A-4, were armed with one dang each. On coming near to the Lunge of P.W. 3, Bachan Singh, Sukhdev Singh, A-3 challenged and exhorted his co-accused that the deceased, must be taught a lesson for inYorming the electricity department. Thereupon the accused Sukhdev Singh alias Billa, A-2, gave a blow with his dang on the head of Joginder Singh, Kulwant Singh, A-4, also gave a blow on the forehead of Joginder Singh with his dang. Thereupon the accused Sukhdev Singh alias Billa, A-2, gave a blow with his dang on the head of Joginder Singh, Kulwant Singh, A-4, also gave a blow on the forehead of Joginder Singh with his dang. Raghubir Singh, A-1, retracted from about two karams distance and fired a shot from his gun at Joginder Singh which hit on his chest and face. One of the pellets from the same shot caused injury to Narender Kaur (P.W.2). The deceased on receipt of the gun shot fell down and died on the spot. P.Ws. along with the accused left the place of occurrence. Harbhajan Singh (P.W. 1) went to the police station Sadar. leaving behind Narinder Kaur (P.W.2) near the dead body and gave a report. The Sub-Inspector, Kulchhinder Singh (P.W .7) registered the crime and went to the place of occurrence. He held inquest on the dead body, sent the same for post-mortem and also sent the injured persons to the hospital for medical aid. The accused were arrested and gun of Raghubir Singh, A-1 was taken into possession and other weapons were recovered. Dr. Rajinder Singh (P.W.8) examined Harbhajan Singh (RW. 1) on 26-9-1981 at about 9 p.m., and her found lacerated wound on the scalp and swelling on the left side of the forehead. The same doctor also examined Narinder Kaur (P.W.2) and found a lacerated punctured wound with irregular inverted margins. He conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Joginder Singh and found 9 injuries and some of them were described as gun shot injuries including injury wounds. On internal examination the doctor found that this was resulted at 16 different places and he also recovered some pellets from the liver and the doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No. 3. He further opined that injury No. 3 was individually and all of them collectively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also opined that all the injuries were caused by fire arm except injury No. 7 which was an old injury. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was laid. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2, the injured witnesses. 2-3. When examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C., Raghubir Singh. A-1 took a specific plea of right of private defence. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was laid. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2, the injured witnesses. 2-3. When examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C., Raghubir Singh. A-1 took a specific plea of right of private defence. He pleaded that on that date at about 2.30 p.m. a buffalo of Harbhajan Singh entered their Haveli and they caught hold of the same and tied her to a peg. Then his uncle Gurmukh Singh came out into the vacant site and protested to Harbhajan Singh (P.W.I) loudly in strong words. Immediately the deceased, Joginder Singh armed with a dang, Harbhajan Singh (P.W.I) with. 12 bore DBL gun and Gurnam Singh s/o Harbhajan Singh armed with Kirpan along with their relation, Bachan Singh, who was also armed with a dang came and attacked Gurmukh Singh, the uncle of Raghubir Singh, A-l and caused injuries to him. On hearing the alarm, A-l, came out of his Haveli with a licenced gun and when he found his uncle fallen on the ground, he fired from his gun in order to save him and the shot hit the deceased. Joginder Singh and that one of the pellets also hit Narinder Kaur (P.W.2). A-l, further stated that Harbhajan Singh, P.W. 1 had also fired at him after he had fired at the deceased and in the process he received gun shot injuries. It is also in his statement that Gurmukh Singh also advanced and gave two blows on him and then he was taken in a tractor to Mana Wala Hospital where he was examined for his injuries which were x-rayed. In this defence A-l, examined Dr. Satish Chander (D.W. 1) who examined him for injuries on the same day at about 3.40 p.m. In support of his version he also examined his uncle, Gurmukh Singh (D.W.2) who had injuries and was examined by P.W.8, Dr. Rajinder Singh, for the said injuries. The other accused pleaded not guilty. 4. The trial Court relying on the evidence ofP.Ws. 1 and 2 held that the four accused jointly attacked the deceased as well as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and that it was Raghubir Singh A-1, who shot at the deceased as a result of which he died. The trial Court also held that the accused also committed murder and also injuries to P.Ws. 1 and 2 held that the four accused jointly attacked the deceased as well as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and that it was Raghubir Singh A-1, who shot at the deceased as a result of which he died. The trial Court also held that the accused also committed murder and also injuries to P.Ws. and accordingly convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C., as well as under Section 307, I.P.C. The High Court confirmed the same as stated above. 5. In this appeal the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the courts have completely ignored the defence version which is probable when a specific plea is being taken by the defence which has been supported by the medical evidence and that the courts below ought to have given the benefit of private defence to the accused persons. This Court has held in number of cases that it is the duty of the prosecution to explain the injuries found on the accused and non-explanation of the same may lead to an adverse inference. In this instant case A-1, has taken a specific plea of right of private defence and also examined D.W.I, Dr. Satish Chandra and D.W.2, his uncle in support of his plea. The doctor who had been examined Raghubir Singh on the same day within an hour of the occurrence found that Raghubir Singh had five lacerated injuries and two incised injuries. These injuries were found on the right fore-arm and the two other incised injuries were found on the hands. The Doctor further stated that injury No. 4 was grievous inasmuch as the bone of right finger was cut off and the doctor further opined that other injuries were suspected to have been caused with fire-arm. At this juncture it is also necessary to note that Gurmukh Singh, D.W. 2, uncle of A-l, aged about 75 years old, was also examined by Dr. Rajinder Singh (P.W.8) on 27-9-81 at about 11.30 a.m. He deposed that he found lacerated wound, 11.6 cm. x 2 cm x scalp deep and x-ray was advised. Likewise she also found that perioustum was cut off and bleeding was present. Apart from these injuries he found several contusions on the other parts of the body. The prosecution has not given any explanation as to how these two accused received these injuries. x 2 cm x scalp deep and x-ray was advised. Likewise she also found that perioustum was cut off and bleeding was present. Apart from these injuries he found several contusions on the other parts of the body. The prosecution has not given any explanation as to how these two accused received these injuries. The very fact that Raghubir Singh, A-l was examined within an hour by doctor for his injuries shows that he and his uncle must have received injuries during the same occurrence. Both the Courts below have observed that there was a possibility of these two persons having received injuries in some other occurrence. We find absolutely no basis for such an inference. It is noteworthy that Raghubir Singh, A-1, has come forward with a specific plea and has given all the details which version is supported by the medical evidence given by D.W.I and also by the evidence of D.W.2, his uncle. The fact that serious injuries were found on D.W.2 shows that the plea taken by Raghubir Singh is more plausible. In a case of this nature the accused need not prove their plea of right of private defence beyond all reasonable doubts. On the probabilities the Courts find that the plea set up by them is a reasonable one and is supported by the facts and circumstances, then the same has to be considered. We find that both the Courts below have wrongly brushed aside the specific plea put forward by the accused. It is pertinent to note that Raghubir Singh, as a matter of fact has also given a complaint in respect of the attack made on him as well as on his uncle, D.W. 2. That being the case, the plea of the accused that in right of self defence he caused injuries to Joginder Singh has a reasonable basis. In these circumstances the plea of A-1, that his uncle, Gurmukh Singh received serious injuries in the attack made by the deceased and the other P.Ws. is probabilised particularly in the light of the medical evidence given by P.W.8. In such a situation if A-1 has shot at such assailants in order to exercise of the right of self-defence he is perfectly within his limits when he has fired only shot which unfortunately resulted in the death of Joginder Singh and a simple injury to P.W. 2. In such a situation if A-1 has shot at such assailants in order to exercise of the right of self-defence he is perfectly within his limits when he has fired only shot which unfortunately resulted in the death of Joginder Singh and a simple injury to P.W. 2. Therefore, it cannot be said that he had exceeded the right of self-defence, even if we apply all the limitations relevant for an enquiry in a matter of exercise of right of self-defence. We find hardly any material which suggests that the accused have exceeded their right of self-defence. For all these reasons we are constrained to give the benefit of the exception to the appellants. Accordingly the convictions and sentences awarded against them are set aside and these appeals are allowed. Appeals allowed. For Citation:  1995 Cri. LJ 3227 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.